More live blog . . .its 8:45 . . .
Lauren Cnare asks Dierdre Garton about Strategic Planning.
Garton says that they have reviewed information given them by Bidar-Sielaff, they will hire a consultant, don’t know what it will look at, they will work on it. Like they did in 2008.
Cnare asks about partnership with the city, what would that look like. What would you consider to be symbolic of the partnership.
Garton says more communication with members of the Common Council. They need to take responsibility for not having lines as open as they should have been. Frequent and regular communication is the most important strategy.
Cnare asks how many jobs will be lost? We’ve heard numbers. What are your intentions, how will you transition, talk about people coming and going and what benefit structure will look like.
Garton says they described 26% benefits, same position from the get-go, its industry standard. They would work with Brad Wirtz and his team and would try to id opportunities, at Overture or in other areas of the city. In the Focus model we had a specific approach. Not done all the financial analysis on the newer model.
Cnare asks about partnership model, is the employment scheme the same?
Garton asks 1 & 2, she that is what she meant, not full financial analysis on version 2, but can imagine that very similar to what we outlined in version 1.
Cnare asks about studies showing not too high or too low paid. Do you agree with that conclusions.
Garton says yes.
Clear is in the chair, Mortensen rep and Jeanne Hoffman here for facilities questions, would like to let them go home, but lets continue with questions for Garton.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks about her vision for board membership, background, who appoints them, etc.
Garton says she agrees with what Undercoffler mention in the pre-meeting discussion. Leaders in community, people who have access to donors, it must be a fundraising board, even more true with version 2. Need more and sooner than they expected. They already have many lawyers, maybe no more. But Mayor just added Scott Haummerson, he’s a CPA. That is critical. In community membership, diversity is important and they are committed to it. Interested in finding next generation of CEOs, from new companies in . . . drumroll please . . . University Research Park.
Bidar-Sielaff asks about public employees, what are your issues, in a broad sense. Why is it that you feel strongly that a public employee model is not workable.
Garton says not cuz public employees. Dichotomy between MCAD board that has no authority over city employees, that is the problem. If you have authority over employees is critical to the future success.
Satya Rhodes-Conway thanks her for her time. Thanks for your remarks in writing. On page 2, added paragraph, 100 community representative invited to session at the center. It struck here that the invite for 100 people to be the community relationship. That might be representative of relationship between Overture and community to date. Overture was picking who they wanted to hear from, didn’t want to invite everyone. We do that at the city on a regular basis, could you talk about not so much reflecting backwards, what do you feel the role of community input is in Overture, what is the most appropriate ways or venue to invite that input. Not buy tickets or free performances, but input on the operations and structure. It might vary based on the model, but talk at higher level.
Garton says that if you choose version 2 and ask for a strategic planning process, front and center would be an effort to open the doors and go out to community at neighborhood center and work with Goodman Center and Becky Steinhoff to create input. So that can inform some decisions on what the agenda would be for community access committee, that came out of conversations with you. They see the need for more regular input from committees like that, the residence committee needs to be improved. Doesn’t want to be defensive, operating in crisis mode for two years to figure out what to do about the debt. By getting rid of the debt, we have great potential for rebirth and to engage the community.
Julia Kerr asks about responses to amendments. Can you explain about audited financials?
Garton says they just got it.
Alders explain it was sent at 6:00.
Kerr says “Really?” in a really annoyed tone of voice.
Kerr asks about issue with audited financials for comment and acceptance.
Garton says no problem.
Kerr says that Overture has been persuasive on community programs, she asks about escalation in the amendments, you seemed opposed, are you.
Garton says when trust fund went away, one of the things they had to look at was getting rid of that portion of their mission, they would have saved a lot of money, but it was too important to do it. They chose instead to shrink the programs, made them smaller, saved some money. To get rid of it and then try to recreate later was counterproductive. That is the reason the formulas are troublesome, we don’t know what will come our way each year.
Kerr says so you are not in support of her amendment.
Garton says yes, they are opposed.
Marsha Rummel asks what the additional costs are in version 2.
Garton says that the primary chunk of it has to do with timing. The building related capital costs, the way it worked out, worked well cuz city on the hook right away and with the ability of the city to borrow and smooth out costs over time, operator side came later and gave them more time to fundraise. Now that has changed. All of it comes to immediately and we don’t have access to the low interest rates. But to be honest may not be able to get financing. May have to defer some things. The other difference they id’d they used 2008 wage and benefit numbers, now have 2010 numbers, and that has contributed to the figure.
Tom Carto, says step and longevity raises, also in focus model HR and IT provided by city for 3 years. In new model taken on by the entity much earlier. One of the issues is that city converting to new financial accounting system that we would have to participate in and then go off of, to spend all the time to convert to it and then do something new with new governance would be costly. That would have to happen earlier.
Rummel asks about MCAD, explain how in version one and two the role of MCAD would be.
Garton says that MAD would lie dormant once the transfer happens 7/1/2012, its a potential vehicle for future tax districts to join together to support exposition facilities like Monona Terrace and Alliant. That would be the next big project to see if that is possible.
Rummel asks how public body goes dormant, with appointees from Governor on down.
Garton says they haven’t thought much about it.
Rummel asks if it is central to their plan.
Garton says it is not, but it could be a vehicle, since it is statutorily allowed.
Rummel asks about possibility of coming back in a few years, is that why you support number 1.
Garton says that would work best, but they think they can manage with version 2, she reminds them that Undercoffler said it is risky, but we would wake up and say “oh my gosh, we have to do this”, that is a challenge they would have no choice about.
Chris Schmidt asks about being in “crisis mode” and why from fall 2008 – July 2010 the Council wasn’t brought into the discussion.
Garton . . .long pause . . . she says members of the Common Council participated in strategic planning in 2008, Verveer and Sanborn sit on MCAD, Clear has been involved in discussions. She says she doesn’t agree they weren’t brought in. They were not at the negotiating table, with the banks. In the past the clear message from the Mayor was that the city would not participate in resolving the debt.
Schmidt asks about the city being impacts.
Garton says that the Mayor was involved.
Bidar-Sielaff asks about MAD being the middle of the structure and its the biggest circle, so when you talked about the future of the Overture, how did you decide who would be the center of the future of Overture. What is created to be the center now, is being taken out. Its a tire with a hole in the middle.
Garton says it emerged early and as May suggested, there are fundamental problems with the model. MCAD having no authority over the employees, that has to go away. As we went through the sorting process to determine what was most viable, the publicc-private model seemed best.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if MCAD Board voted to go away and give everything to 201 State.
Garton says that they work very closely.
Bidar-Sielaff says “yes”. She asks if it was a public meeting.
Garton isn’t sure if it was in closed session.
Kerr asks about community performance, we are entering into a contract, besides opening the doors to the community, how do we have assurance that what is one of the cornerstones of the Overture, the community outreach and free and reduced programs that you have been clear in saying it is a benefit, if you can’t agree to a benchmark or formula, how do we approach that.
Garton says in the term sheet was to do an annual report, but provide a plan of expectations for the year. We would be able to predict a year out what they could do, you would sign off, get the plan and we would perform and give report with reasons why they didn’t perform.
Kerr asks if that doesn’t produce instability. What if they come with one number and the council doubles it.
Garton says they would come with reasonable expectations, but developing a better relationship, hopefully the surprises wouldn’t happen.
Kerr says that broader outreach on income and users is a good thing for Overture, what do you say to when you can’t agree to a floor or formula, how do we get around the perception this is an elitist organization.
Garton says they haven’t done a good job letting people know. She’d like to think if they knew, that perception could change. their marketing is focused on buying tickets, they should do institutional marketing.
Kerr says she appreciates her difficult balancing act representing the board and her own position.
Clear asks if questions for Angela from Mortenson and Jeanne Hoffman? And if not, can they send them home?
Cnare asks about a 10 – 15 minute break. Clear agrees that is a good idea. Can they send them home?
Satya Rhodes-Conway asks about how many other questions of speakers, about half the alders raise their hands. She is concerned about not having an indication of who they have questions of or not go into recess.
Clear says they will do the later.
Rhodes-Conway has questions for AFSME and Mary Berryman Agard
Bidar-Sielaff has questions for Ken Golden, Paul Soglin, Nino Amato and AFSCME
Cnare has questions for Becky Steinhoff and Professor Undercoffler
City staff it is understood would be asked questions later.
Schumacher says they should stay around, there may be more questions.
AFSCME rep says she has to go home, has three small kids, so they take her questions first.
Rhodes-Conway thanks her for being here, says not to answer if it puts them in a bad position. She says they heard alot about losing employees, pay cuts or losing benefits, about not solving the problems on the backs of the employees. She doesn’t disagree, but she wants to be clear. Are you concerned based on what has been said here tonight that the salaries will go down if not city employees.
She says yes, especially in version one, the union wasn’t at the table. It starts with the 2010 rate, and they have wage increases in 2012 in their agreement with the city.
Rhodes-Conway asks about benefits.
She says they are concerns, they would not be in the state retirement system, if they become private employees that impacts their pension, they have to go back into public employment in 5 year or there are consequences. The insurance plan is a concern, they pay no premium, they will be in a smaller pool, the premiums would be higher. They would have to contract and being a small group, and the premiums are high. They will likely have to contribute towards a premium. 201 won’t be financially able or willing to picck up the whole cost.
Rhodes-Conway asks about bargaining, she sees the stop union busting signs, but hear’s they would honor those unions. What issues to you see?
She says that it depends how many employees would choose to go to the private entity. Under the agreement, employees have a choice, that has to be made. In private sector they have a right to strike, but in city they have different rates. Would 201 be ready to deal with a strike situation. She also thinks that they won’t want to lose benefits and start bumping and that will be a huge undertaking, and it will be tough city wide.
Rhodes-Conway wonders if estimates are 20 employees.
She says there are 23 permanent employees plus hourly employees.
Rhodes-Conway says 23 people, from other departments in the city could lose their jobs as a result of bumping, is that right.
She agrees.
Rhodes-Conway asks about arbitration vs right to go to strike. Is it more advantageous for arbitration or strike.
She says third party safety net is better for both ends.
Rhodes-Conway asks about impact of a strike.
She says she isn’t sure, but if everyone is on strike, they could ask people to come in off the street and cross the picket line, she thinks that it would be hard for people to do that here in Madison.
Bidar-Sielaff asks about bumping, if you negotiated it with the city, so we haven’t created the problem, but when you negotiated that you didn’t expect to have 23 positions privatized, were you counting on 2 or 3.
She says that it is usually a job here an there.
Michael Schumacher asks about AFSCME decision on ??, some of your members says they would be unrepresented. Would they still be union.
She says that they agreed to recognize AFSME under option 1, under option 2 no acknowledgement they would be recognized.
Schumacher asks if it is about being unionized or city employees.
She says it is city employees.
Schumacher asks if they represent private unions.
She explains that they do.
Schumacher asks how their compensation packages are?
She says lower than public sector employees.
Schumaher asks how it compares to non-represented employees.
She says she is not sure, she would guess represented groups would be slightly better off cuz they could attempt to bargain, but it depends upon how strong the unit is.
Schumacher has a follow up to 201 about the unions.
Motion for a 15 minute recess. Be back at 10:05
